Do Christians acknowledge that God might not exist?

[Wolves]

Sure, if he were approachable and available to everyone that wanted to talk to him then there would be very little debate about his existence.

This is what I struggle with, too. Through prayer, I have asked God to speak to me and to allow me to believe in him but nothing ever happens. Over many years of prayer.

How and when does God decide who he talks to?

 

[oi_antz]

This is what I struggle with, too. Through prayer, I have asked God to speak to me and to allow me to believe in him but nothing ever happens. Over many years of prayer.

How and when does God decide who he talks to?

Do you know why you doubt that He is talking to you?

 

[Wolves]

Do you know why you doubt that He is talking to you?

Because I don't hear him talking to me. I don't feel as though he has answered me in any way, I don't feel his presence or hear any words from him. If I'd been praying to him to ask him to help me feel his presence, wouldn't he answer my prayers?

 

[oi_antz]

Because I don't hear him talking to me. I don't feel as though he has answered me in any way, I don't feel his presence or hear any words from him. If I'd been praying to him to ask him to help me feel his presence, wouldn't he answer my prayers?

I would not have any idea why He would choose to not speak to you. I would rather say He was waiting for you to listen. But having said this, I will say that you shouldn't take it personally.

I want to share with you that I have understanding from my experiences, if I am unrepentant sin doer, I will not feel comfortable to approach His honour. With this understanding I project this explanation on those who struggle to recognise it. I don't get to suggest it though usually, so this is new. I wonder for you if there is a recurring bible verse that you struggle with. I will not ask you to tell us, but it might be helpful for you to be looking for this. He speaks to us by spirit rather than word usually (though He is The Word), so if you know it is Him, you will just know what He is telling you, even if it is not put to words.

 

[aiki]

Here a few of the reasons why I believe the Bible is the Word of God:

1. Thematic unity.
2. Fulfilled prophecy.
3. Archaeological and historical accuracy.
4. Its survivability and popularity.
5. Its enormous impact upon individuals and societies.
6. Its correspondence to reality/explanatory power.
7. The uniqueness of its redemption message.

And so on. As you can see, there is nothing circular in my reasoning here. None of these points standing alone (except maybe point #2) is a knock-out punch in favour of the divine nature of Scripture. But taken together, the cumulative weight of these points makes my belief quite reasonable.

Couldn't all these elements still be found in a man-made religion?

No, I don't think so, not in the way they exist in relation to the Bible. Take the thematic unity of Scripture, for example. The Bible was written over some 1500 years in three different languages, on three different continents, by some 40 different writers from widely varying walks of life yet the themes of the Bible remain incredibly unified. No other book can boast this sort of unity under such diverse factors of development.

The prophecies of the Bible are also quite incredible. In terms of specificity, and completeness, and number of fulfilled prophecies no other source of prophecy comes anywhere close to the Bible.

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

The Bible has long been used as a primary source for archaeologists studying ancient Middle Eastern civilizations. Again and again places, and events, and cultures that were referred to only in Scripture have been discovered and the veracity of Scripture further established.

And so on.

Selah.

 

[Albion]

I suppose I can agree to the question of the thread to the extent that I cannot be absolutely sure that anything exists. But other than that, I can't figure any way that the question, as posed, can be answered with a "yes."

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

It is not enough to merely "desire to speak with God". He desires to speak with you as well, but if you believe in Him, and desire to know Him, you will listen to His Word under a pastor-teacher. God speaks through His word to the believer who is filled with the Holy Spirit. This takes dedication and concentration on scripture as it is being taught:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[Joshua260]

I never said that age or fanaticism had anything to do with it.

Okay. So whether or not the New Testament was written long ago and whether or not the gospel writers might have been religious fanatics really has nothing to do with whether or not you believe the New Testament. Thanks for clearing that up.

There are plenty of causes and effects that happen without conscious decision.

You're referring to effects which exist contemporaneously with the causes. The situation I was describing is where the cause existed without the effect (the universe), in which the situation leads to the suggestion of the cause being personal. But as I said, I can understand why you might have a hard time agreeing to that one because it took me a while myself before I grasped the idea.

I don't agree with the new argument that you are now trying to insert into the old one.

The "personal" trait is not really new to the argument, but even if we withdrew the "personal" trait from our discussion, we are still left with the cause of the beginning of the universe having the following characteristics:
1. timeless
2. immaterial
3. extremely powerful
4. uncaused

These are traits that we commonly attribute to God, and that's why the KCA leads to this implication.

 

[alexiscurious]

You're referring to effects which exist contemporaneously with the causes. The situation I was describing is where the cause existed without the effect (the universe), in which the situation leads to the suggestion of the cause being personal. But as I said, I can understand why you might have a hard time agreeing to that one because it took me a while myself before I grasped the idea.

What in the world makes you think effects would exist before a cause?

The "personal" trait is not really new to the argument, but even if we withdrew the "personal" trait from our discussion, we are still left with the cause of the beginning of the universe having the following characteristics:
1. timeless
2. immaterial
3. extremely powerful
4. uncaused

These are traits that we commonly attribute to God, and that's why the KCA leads to this implication.

These traits could be applied to any god or first cause and does not narrow down for us what the cause could be. Of course anything that was the first cause would already by definition have to be uncaused, timeless, and immaterial. You're using very broad terms here.

 

[alexiscurious]

You could do that with historical accuracy alone. Next?

No. Other religions can be historically accurate and still be completely wrong.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

No. Other religions can be historically accurate and still be completely wrong.

I challenge you to name one that comes even close to being as historically accurate as the Bible.

 

[seashale76]

Are Christians willing to acknowledge that God might not exist? That you might be wrong? If so, why do you insist on telling other people that they are following the wrong god if yours is just as much of an uncertainty as theirs is?

God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us. I experience God's presence every single time I go to Divine Liturgy and partake of the Eucharist- the fountain of immortality- the medicine for what ails us. It's not this indefinable maybe, maybe not thing. It is what it is.

 

[oi_antz]

These traits could be applied to any god

I don't think this is true. I think you might have meant to say they could be applied to any claimed representation of God. If that is what you meant to say (which would be clearer with correct spelling) then OK. Otherwise, can you verify that you think every god (small g) is causeless? I know that some gods are said to be caused.

Of course anything that was the first cause would already by definition have to be uncaused, timeless, and immaterial.

I am not convinced this is true for timelessnees or immateriality, fwiw. I am able to imagine that God can experience time without the universe, for example.

 

[Joshua260]

What in the world makes you think effects would exist before a cause?

I don't think I said that.

These traits could be applied to any god or first cause and does not narrow down for us what the cause could be. Of course anything that was the first cause would already by definition have to be uncaused, timeless, and immaterial. You're using very broad terms here.

Well, although the KCA does not point directly to the Christian god all by itself, it does narrow down the list of possible candidates quite a bit. For example, Thor or Zeus would not apply, nor would many of the other pagan gods because the cause would have had to exist without the universe and would thus have been much more powerful than Thor or Zeus who are both said to exist within space-time. The cause also could not have been the infamous "spaghetti monster" because he was made of spaghetti, and as you point out, the cause would have to have been immaterial. It turns out that the KCA narrows down the list to gods such as the Muslim, Jewish , or Christian god.

 

[alexiscurious]

I challenge you to name one that comes even close to being as historically accurate as the Bible.

Any history textbook you can find is more historically accurate than the bible is. Half the Bible was written as fiction after all.

I've asked you to provide me with something that another man-made religion can't replicate and it seems you have failed to do so after a few frivolous attempts.

 

[alexiscurious]

I don't think I said that.

Oops. Well, I still can't quite understand what you said. You seem to think that effects and causes exist during the same time? That doesn't make sense. They are two separate events?

Well, although the KCA does not point directly to the Christian god all by itself, it does narrow down the list of possible candidates quite a bit. For example, Thor or Zeus would not apply, nor would many of the other pagan gods because the cause would have had to exist without the universe and would thus have been much more powerful than Thor or Zeus who are both said to exist within space-time. The cause also could not have been the infamous "spaghetti monster" because he was made of spaghetti, and as you point out, the cause would have to have been immaterial. It turns out that the KCA narrows down the list to gods such as the Muslim, Jewish , or Christian god.

So the argument specifically has nothing to do with your God and can easily be used to argue any first cause. Would you like to give me an argument that relates this time?

 

[alexiscurious]

I am not convinced this is true for timelessnees or immateriality, fwiw. I am able to imagine that God can experience time without the universe, for example.

Timeless and uncaused are basically the same thing. Joshua defined immaterial as existing outside the universe (which is something a first cause would have to do because the universe wasn't around at that time). These are broad terms which could be applied to any first cause.

 

[alexiscurious]

.. Why have you said this then:

"He is completely against talking to me right now"

.. when in actual fact you are now saying that you will not consider having a conversation with Him?

Prayer is not a conversation with him. It is a conversation with your imagination.

I really don't know why I need to remind you that not everyone does want to approach and talk to Him. What do you like to say about that?

It doesn't matter if they want to approach him or not, he is not approachable period.

 

[aiki]

Oops. Well, I still can't quite understand what you said. You seem to think that effects and causes exist during the same time? That doesn't make sense. They are two separate events?

Here's a classic example of what Joshua260 is talking about: freezing water. Why does water freeze? Because the temperature has dropped below 0 degrees Celsius. And as long as the temperature remains at least this low the water will remain frozen. Thus, the cause of the freezing water and the frozen water are concurrent with each other. I'm sure Joshua260 has other examples he could offer.

So the argument specifically has nothing to do with your God and can easily be used to argue any first cause.

Actually, Joshua260 explained very well that the KCA limits the field of possible First Causes. The argument does not bring us to the conclusion that just any old first cause we might imagine will do. Re-read his comments.

Sorry, Joshua260 for intruding on your exchange here. I'm a bit bored at the moment.

Selah.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Any history textbook you can find is more historically accurate than the bible is. Half the Bible was written as fiction after all.

I've asked you to provide me with something that another man-made religion can't replicate and it seems you have failed to do so after a few frivolous attempts.

Y'know, Alex...I get the sneaking suspicion that you feel as though you've already got all the answers, and you're basically just snubbing everyone who tries to explain anything to you. Clearly, you're bored and not willing to learn anything. So I'm out. Good luck in life...you know...knowing everything like you do...man, that must be hard!

"Half the Bible was written as fiction", eh? Where's your so-called "source" on that...? And you're saying at least half of it is true? Which half?